Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Requirements for Relief (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period)” (Unfair Dismissal 330)
- Date2026/03/30 04:08
- Read 194
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision that was disposed of by procedural dismissal on the issues of “requirements for relief (fewer than 5 employees · exclusion period).”
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9109 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.03.03 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative, and there was no evidence that they received any wages or allowances from the association. Merely supporting the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks was not sufficient to regard them as employees of the association. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose from an association operating a Youth After-School Academy, where a worker whose fixed-term employment contract was not renewed received a notice of contract expiration and filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five, and whether the unfair dismissal relief application was filed within the statutory exclusion period.
The Commission examined whether personnel belonging to other organizations affiliated with the association should be counted as the association’s regular employees, and whether the three‑month exclusion period, calculated from the date of loss of employment insurance coverage, had been observed. It ultimately dismissed the relief application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were “whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five, and whether the worker’s unfair dismissal relief application to the Labor Relations Commission was filed after the lapse of the three‑month exclusion period.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the secretary-general, accounting team leader, and the head and director of the Education and Culture Center, whom the worker asserted were regular employees, all belonged to other legal entities (a cooperative, a temple, etc.), that they did not receive any wages or allowances from the association, and that they merely provided administrative and facility support for the association’s work. It also found that only one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes were confirmed as employees of the association.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the association had only three regular employees and therefore did not constitute a “workplace with at least five employees” to which the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act applies. In addition, the employer had reported the worker’s loss of employment insurance insured status as 1 January 2025, and the worker was contesting the notice of contract expiration dated 31 December 2024. Accordingly, the starting date for calculating the relief application period had to be regarded as 1 January 2025, and the application could have been filed up to three months thereafter (31 March 2025). Because the application was filed after that date, the Commission held that it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period and should be dismissed.
In this case, before examining the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal, the Commission determined that the unfair dismissal relief application itself could not be accepted for procedural reasons—namely, that the workplace had fewer than five regular employees and that the exclusion period had expired.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary not only to consider whether the dismissal was unfair, but first to confirm whether the workplace qualifies as a “workplace with at least five regular employees” to which the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act applies. In addition, upon receiving a notice of dismissal, contract expiration, or loss of employment insurance coverage, the worker should immediately record the specific date and bear in mind that a relief application must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from that date in order to preserve any benefit from the relief system.
In particular, in organizations where multiple legal entities such as associations, foundations, and cooperatives are intertwined, it is important at an early stage to secure evidence proving the “actual employer,” such as where wages are actually paid from, which workplace is registered for the four major social insurances, and who issues personnel orders.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when calculating the number of regular employees, it is necessary to clearly separate and manage personnel and payroll systems on the premise that only those who actually receive wages and are subject to direction and supervision are to be included. Where multiple organizations share a single space or mutually support each other with personnel, if the wage-paying entity and the workplace registered for employment insurance are not managed consistently, there is a greater risk that workers will later argue that the entities constitute “in substance a single workplace,” so caution is required.
Furthermore, when notifying the termination of an employment contract (whether for redundancy, expiry of a fixed-term contract, or disciplinary dismissal), it is advisable to clearly record the date of loss of employment insurance insured status and the date of notification, and to retain written evidence of the basis for those dates, in order to reduce disputes over the exclusion period. Because procedural defects at the Labor Relations Commission stage can determine whether a case is dismissed or rejected, HR and labor relations personnel should manage not only the risk of unfair dismissal itself but also the risks associated with the exclusion period for filing relief applications.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative. There was no evidence that the secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○ received any wages or allowances from the association, and the fact that they supported the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks does not make it reasonable to regard them as employees of the association. In addition, the head Park ○○ of the ○○ Education and Culture Center and the director (chief of general affairs) were confirmed, through Park ○○’s certificate of employment and other documents, to belong to Daehan ○○○○○ Seonunsa Temple. Both Park ○○ and the chief of general affairs merely provided administrative and facility support for the operation of the Youth After-School Academy conducted on the second floor of the ○○ Education and Culture Center on behalf of the association’s chair, and there was no evidence of any separate employment relationship or payment of remuneration, so it is difficult to regard them as employees of the association. Accordingly, the association’s number of regular employees is limited to three—one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes—and the workplace therefore has fewer than five employees.
B. Whether the relief application was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period
The employer reported 1 January 2025 as the date of loss of employment insurance insured status for the worker, and the relief application also contests the “notice of contract expiration on 31 December 2024 as an unfair dismissal.” In light of this, it is reasonable to regard 1 January 2025 as the starting date for calculating the relief application period, and therefore the relief application should have been filed by 31 March 2025. However, it was filed after that period had elapsed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative, and there was no evidence that the secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○ received any wages or allowances from the association. The fact that they supported the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks does not make it reasonable to regard them as employees of the association. In addition, the head Park ○○ of the ○○ Education and Culture Center and the director (chief of general affairs) were confirmed, through Park ○○’s certificate of employment and other documents, to belong to Daehan ○○○○○ Seonunsa Temple. Both Park ○○ and the chief of general affairs merely provided administrative and facility support for the operation of the Youth After-School Academy conducted on the second floor of the ○○ Education and Culture Center on behalf of the association’s chair, and there was no evidence of any separate employment relationship or payment of remuneration, so it is difficult to regard them as employees of the association. Accordingly, the association’s number of regular employees is limited to three—one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes—and the workplace therefore has fewer than five employees.
B. Whether the relief application was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period
The employer reported 1 January 2025 as the date of loss of employment insurance insured status for the worker, and the relief application also contests the “notice of contract expiration on 31 December 2024 as an unfair dismissal.” In light of this, it is reasonable to regard 1 January 2025 as the starting date for calculating the relief application period, and therefore the relief application should have been filed by 31 March 2025. However, it was filed after that period had elapsed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Form an Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Absence of Coercion or Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, requirements for relief (fewer than 5 employees · exclusion period), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Absence of Coercion or Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to requirements for relief (fewer than 5 employees · exclusion period) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Requirements for Relief (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9109 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.03.03 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative, and there was no evidence that they received any wages or allowances from the association. Merely supporting the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks was not sufficient to regard them as employees of the association. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose from an association operating a Youth After-School Academy, where a worker whose fixed-term employment contract was not renewed received a notice of contract expiration and filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five, and whether the unfair dismissal relief application was filed within the statutory exclusion period.
The Commission examined whether personnel belonging to other organizations affiliated with the association should be counted as the association’s regular employees, and whether the three‑month exclusion period, calculated from the date of loss of employment insurance coverage, had been observed. It ultimately dismissed the relief application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were “whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five, and whether the worker’s unfair dismissal relief application to the Labor Relations Commission was filed after the lapse of the three‑month exclusion period.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the secretary-general, accounting team leader, and the head and director of the Education and Culture Center, whom the worker asserted were regular employees, all belonged to other legal entities (a cooperative, a temple, etc.), that they did not receive any wages or allowances from the association, and that they merely provided administrative and facility support for the association’s work. It also found that only one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes were confirmed as employees of the association.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the association had only three regular employees and therefore did not constitute a “workplace with at least five employees” to which the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act applies. In addition, the employer had reported the worker’s loss of employment insurance insured status as 1 January 2025, and the worker was contesting the notice of contract expiration dated 31 December 2024. Accordingly, the starting date for calculating the relief application period had to be regarded as 1 January 2025, and the application could have been filed up to three months thereafter (31 March 2025). Because the application was filed after that date, the Commission held that it was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period and should be dismissed.
In this case, before examining the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal, the Commission determined that the unfair dismissal relief application itself could not be accepted for procedural reasons—namely, that the workplace had fewer than five regular employees and that the exclusion period had expired.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary not only to consider whether the dismissal was unfair, but first to confirm whether the workplace qualifies as a “workplace with at least five regular employees” to which the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act applies. In addition, upon receiving a notice of dismissal, contract expiration, or loss of employment insurance coverage, the worker should immediately record the specific date and bear in mind that a relief application must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from that date in order to preserve any benefit from the relief system.
In particular, in organizations where multiple legal entities such as associations, foundations, and cooperatives are intertwined, it is important at an early stage to secure evidence proving the “actual employer,” such as where wages are actually paid from, which workplace is registered for the four major social insurances, and who issues personnel orders.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when calculating the number of regular employees, it is necessary to clearly separate and manage personnel and payroll systems on the premise that only those who actually receive wages and are subject to direction and supervision are to be included. Where multiple organizations share a single space or mutually support each other with personnel, if the wage-paying entity and the workplace registered for employment insurance are not managed consistently, there is a greater risk that workers will later argue that the entities constitute “in substance a single workplace,” so caution is required.
Furthermore, when notifying the termination of an employment contract (whether for redundancy, expiry of a fixed-term contract, or disciplinary dismissal), it is advisable to clearly record the date of loss of employment insurance insured status and the date of notification, and to retain written evidence of the basis for those dates, in order to reduce disputes over the exclusion period. Because procedural defects at the Labor Relations Commission stage can determine whether a case is dismissed or rejected, HR and labor relations personnel should manage not only the risk of unfair dismissal itself but also the risks associated with the exclusion period for filing relief applications.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative. There was no evidence that the secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○ received any wages or allowances from the association, and the fact that they supported the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks does not make it reasonable to regard them as employees of the association. In addition, the head Park ○○ of the ○○ Education and Culture Center and the director (chief of general affairs) were confirmed, through Park ○○’s certificate of employment and other documents, to belong to Daehan ○○○○○ Seonunsa Temple. Both Park ○○ and the chief of general affairs merely provided administrative and facility support for the operation of the Youth After-School Academy conducted on the second floor of the ○○ Education and Culture Center on behalf of the association’s chair, and there was no evidence of any separate employment relationship or payment of remuneration, so it is difficult to regard them as employees of the association. Accordingly, the association’s number of regular employees is limited to three—one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes—and the workplace therefore has fewer than five employees.
B. Whether the relief application was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period
The employer reported 1 January 2025 as the date of loss of employment insurance insured status for the worker, and the relief application also contests the “notice of contract expiration on 31 December 2024 as an unfair dismissal.” In light of this, it is reasonable to regard 1 January 2025 as the starting date for calculating the relief application period, and therefore the relief application should have been filed by 31 March 2025. However, it was filed after that period had elapsed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the association’s number of regular employees was at least five
The secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○, whom the worker claimed were regular employees of the association, were confirmed on the employment insurance workplace insured persons list as employees of ○○ Cooperative, and there was no evidence that the secretary-general Lee ○○ and accounting team leader Choi ○○ received any wages or allowances from the association. The fact that they supported the association’s chair in recruitment, interviews, expenditures, and similar tasks does not make it reasonable to regard them as employees of the association. In addition, the head Park ○○ of the ○○ Education and Culture Center and the director (chief of general affairs) were confirmed, through Park ○○’s certificate of employment and other documents, to belong to Daehan ○○○○○ Seonunsa Temple. Both Park ○○ and the chief of general affairs merely provided administrative and facility support for the operation of the Youth After-School Academy conducted on the second floor of the ○○ Education and Culture Center on behalf of the association’s chair, and there was no evidence of any separate employment relationship or payment of remuneration, so it is difficult to regard them as employees of the association. Accordingly, the association’s number of regular employees is limited to three—one team leader and two homeroom teachers in charge of the After-School Academy classes—and the workplace therefore has fewer than five employees.
B. Whether the relief application was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period
The employer reported 1 January 2025 as the date of loss of employment insurance insured status for the worker, and the relief application also contests the “notice of contract expiration on 31 December 2024 as an unfair dismissal.” In light of this, it is reasonable to regard 1 January 2025 as the starting date for calculating the relief application period, and therefore the relief application should have been filed by 31 March 2025. However, it was filed after that period had elapsed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Form an Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Absence of Coercion or Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, requirements for relief (fewer than 5 employees · exclusion period), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Absence of Coercion or Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to requirements for relief (fewer than 5 employees · exclusion period) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Requirements for Relief (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
